How long is too long for the AFL season?
Columnist By Michael DiFabrizio, 13 Jun 2012 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, AFL fixture, AFL players association, Andrew Demetriou, Carlton Blues, Cricket Victoria, Etihad Stadium, MCG, Richmond Tigers
Michael Firrito of North Melbourne (Slattery Images)
Related coverage
Andrew Demetriou did his mid-season round of radio interviews over the weekend, which usually delivers some kind of insight into the future direction of the competition.
This time was no different, with the debate over bringing forward the start of the season getting another airing.
The problem has been the same for some time.
The players, through the AFLPA, have been asking for two byes in the home and away season. This would require the season to last one week longer.
The MCG, however, can’t be used by the AFL any earlier than it is because cricket have claim to the ground should Victoria win hosting rights for the Sheffield Shield final.
Bringing the end of the season back a week is do-able, but as we know from the past two years, there are clashes with other sporting events around the country when this happens.
And that traditional “one day in September” suddenly starts to fall in October.
The way around this is to avoid the MCG in Round 1, which is what Demetriou threatened to do last week by hinting that the league would move the season opener between Richmond and Carlton to Etihad Stadium.
The hint can probably be described as tongue-in-cheek, or as some form of scare tactic. The fixture draws well above Etihad’s capacity so it’s unlikely to actually be moved.
But on Triple M over the weekend, Demetriou was open to the idea of letting cricket have Etihad should they need a venue.
“I hadn’t thought of that,” he claimed. “But yes we could [offer it]. Etihad Stadium is a first class venue and they’ve played cricket there before.”
“If they wanted to play there we could make it available for them and we could play at [the MCG].”
Now, whether Cricket Victoria would view the plan so positively is another story, but you get the sense one way or another the AFL will make it work. In 2012, they played one game – the first Sydney derby – on that earlier weekend, at the very least they’ll try something similar in 2013.
But is the season long enough as it already is? Do we need an extra weekend of footy? Do we need an extra three straight weeks of less games?
On the first two questions, the AFL are definitely pushing the boundaries. The blowouts witnessed in the second half of last season turned many off, although the ultra-competitive nature of this season’s ladder may prevent a repeat of that.
Perhaps the best way to put it is unless the AFL breaks up the club-versus-club cycle – which, just quietly, State of Origin is capable of doing – then the current season length is just right.
It’s the last question, though, where things get tricky.
Many supporters are less than thrilled about shortened rounds of footy, and it’s been that way since the advent of the split round, but player welfare should be paramount.
With the speed of the game increasing, partly because of AFL rule changes, we need to listen to players on issues such as these.
For this reason, I’m supportive of allowing the season to start a week earlier, but that’s only on the proviso the AFL don’t get carried away beyond that.
Not that long ago the league was super-keen on extending the finals series also – and they haven’t fully killed off that idea, either, despite the fact it makes zero sense when you actually break down the implications of it.
Basically, it’s no secret they want to carve even more weeks out of the calendar to claim as their own.
While that makes sense from a commercial perspective, the AFL need to listen to the people that without whom, there would be no game – the players and the fans.
Michael DiFabrizio is completing his journalism degree. As an AFL writer, he has been an expert columnist at The Roar since 2009, and appeared in The Age and on ABC television and radio. Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
June 13th 2012 @ 8:33am
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 8:33am | Report comment
By pure happenstance, it’s the players clamouring for the extra bye, and on this occasion, the AFL is very, very happy to oblige because it suits them right down to the ground.
At the moment, we produce a rest week for each team by stretcing two rounds over three weeks (6 games x 3 weeks = 18 games, or two rounds).
This produces 23 rounds and fills in the 27 weeks allocated to the AFL within the constraints of the cricket season (adding in 4 weeks of finals).
As we can see with the six games just completed in the first week of the bye – they averaged nearly 40,000 per game.
So apart from giving the players two weeks off, introducing a second bye has real commercial advantages to the AFL:
* stretches the season proper out to 28 weeks, without increasing the number of games – longer period of media interest, etc
* those six rounds of byes inevitably carry a higher average attendance and clash less for the broadcasters.
The only obstacle at the moment is having the MCG for the season opener. Cricket Victoria has the MCG until the second last weekend in March – just in case it needs to host the Sheffield Shield final – otherwise it remains vacant – what a waste.
Even if Victoria hosts the Sheffield Shield final – only 3,000 will attend – at the most – so why not find an alternative venue?
If the AFL can’t get the MCG a week earlier, it will stage one of its marquee games, the Carlton vs richmond season opener, at Etihad, where 30,000 less will attend – and that represents 80,000 that the MCG Trust aren’t seeing, and one less marquee game for MCC members.
On top of that, with the cricket world cup coming in 2015, it will go into early April, so the AFL will have to allow Cricket Australia use of the MCG (yes, the AFL has the call).
So it’s all going to fall into place – the AFL will give Cricket Australia a couple of extra weeks on the MCG if, and only if, Cricket Victoria can give the AFL the MCG for an additional week – permanently.
And that seems a fair trade.
June 13th 2012 @ 8:53am
mds1970 said | June 13th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
Traditionally, cricket season was October to March and footy season was April to September. Cricket ground usage contracts still reflect that.
The NRL had an issue four years ago in their centenary season, when they scheduled a match at the SCG subject to the Sheffield Shield final. But when NSW qualified to host the Shield final that year, the NRL game was moved next door to the SFS. The fact that the NRL drew over 18,000 while the cricket attracted barely 200 through the gates was irrelevant – the contract meant cricket came first.
It wasn’t a major problem for the NRL. The SFS has a similar capacity to the SCG, and the game was never going to draw more than half that; so it wasn’t a major hassle to move the game.
The AFL are keen to move the start of their season a week forward, and there’s good reasons for that. But they’d be unable to, with certainty, schedule games for the MCG, the SCG, the Gabba or Bellerive – unless WA or SA finishes on top, one of them would be hosting the Shield final.
It could be done. They could schedule three games at Docklands, one each at Subiaco, AAMI, Metricon and Kardinia Park. Hawthorn could play one of their Tasmania games, the Western Bulldogs could play Port in Darwin. The SCG would be also potentially unavailable, and with an early Easter Skoda could also possibly be – but games could be scheduled at ANZ, and/or GWS playing one of their Canberra games or even playing a low-drawing opponent at Blacktown.
It would mean losing the Richmond v Carlton season opener, or playing it at Docklands; but Docklands would mean a smaller crowd than it otherwise would have attracted.
The offer to give cricket Docklands for the weekend is an interesting one. It would guarantee no rain delay for the cricket. But I can’t see cricket being too interested. Of the few fans that would attend, most are MCC members and would want to be in their stand.
June 13th 2012 @ 1:38pm
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
The Age is talking this morning about the cricket keeping the MCG, and Rich and Carl rejecting the offer to start the season at Etihad, meaning doing something similar to what you have stated, using Homebush, Footy park, Subi, Kardinia Park, maybe Lonnie, and Etihad, and perhaps holding off on Rich vs Carl for week 2, as the first game at the G for the season – I guess that could work just as well.
Maybe GWS hosting the Swans at Homebush on a thursday/friday night might become the new way to open the season?
June 13th 2012 @ 8:55am
Cameron said | June 13th 2012 @ 8:55am | Report comment
Cattery this coming week will not average anywhere near 40000, in fact I’m not sure if it will average even 30000 with the games on offer. The only mildly enticing game would be St. Kilda Vs Adelaide, so higher average attendences during bye rounds all depend on teams being in form at the time.
As for the MCG not being available for the week previous to the usual starting date, I just cannot fathom why the MCC would not want the season opener played at that time to ensure what would surely be a financial windfall for them, as opposed to a Shield final where hardly anyone turns up and may or may not happen in the first place.
June 13th 2012 @ 9:17am
mds1970 said | June 13th 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
The MCC are currently locked into a contract, so they have to make the MCG available for the Shield final.
I suspect Cattery’s last paragraph may well be how the issue gets resolved – that the AFL gives cricket as long as they need for the 2015 World Cup, but then gets permanent access a week earlier from 2016 on.
June 13th 2012 @ 9:14am
Me too said | June 13th 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Outside of Carlton and Richmond fans, isn’t everyone sick of this fixture becoming entrenched as a ‘season opener’. Every year the same game? The way we are going pretty soon every week will have a ‘marquee’ game and here will be no randomness in the draw at all. And the smaller clubs will remain on a drip feed system, and forever at the mercy of the AFL’s will. The whole thing has become a joke with revenue the number one priority (over fairness of competition and fairness to clubs & supporters) for a supposedly non- profit organisation instilled with representing the interests and integrity of e game.
June 13th 2012 @ 9:21am
Jack Russell said | June 13th 2012 @ 9:21am | Report comment
Agreed, i’m not sure why there is this obsession with playing Carlton v Richmond first up. They’re 2 of the worst performed clubs over the past 15 years, most of their matches are hardly memorable and their ‘rivalry’ comes from a time when it was the VFL.
I’d rather see another Sydney derby.
June 13th 2012 @ 9:32am
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Both could be scheduled for the opening of the season, especially since the Olympic stadium would be one of the grounds available at that time of year.
Why is Rich playing Carlton for the opening round diminishing the integrity of the comp? They have to play each other at least once per season – so what if it’s the opening round?
June 13th 2012 @ 9:54am
Cameron said | June 13th 2012 @ 9:54am | Report comment
Jack Russell
You have just complained that Richmond and Carlton and two of the worst performing clubs in recent times and so you reason they do not deserve the opening season fixture, then you stated you would rather see GWS play to open the season! Do you not see the contradiction in your position?
June 13th 2012 @ 12:06pm
Jack Russell said | June 13th 2012 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
No. I didn’t say that I would schedule the Sydney Derby first up, only that I would rather watch it over Carlton v Richmond. It was a comment on my perspective. In any case, Sydney are a consistently high performer, and GWS have some really exciting talent. As a neutral, its a more appealing game.
June 13th 2012 @ 10:12am
Hoolifan said | June 13th 2012 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Everyone should play everyone else home and away.
Not as if the players have to worry about jobs.
Don’t get the excuses, they make no scientific sense.
June 13th 2012 @ 11:25am
Australian Rules said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
No scientific explanation required Hoolifan… Australian Football shares it’s ovals with cricket. If every team played each other home and away, that creates a 34 week home and away season.
Where do you play those games when the MCG, SCG, GABBA (and soon to be SACA) are contracted to the state cricket bodies for their games?
June 13th 2012 @ 11:56am
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:56am | Report comment
In any event, even if Australian Football didn’t share grounds with cricket, to play 34 home and away games is physically impossible.
Only anti-AFL trolls will try to argue otherwise.
June 13th 2012 @ 3:38pm
Hoolifan said | June 13th 2012 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Utter tripe.
# The players are training anyhow. So the potential for injury is always there. You hear about players going down in preseason all the time.
# They play 5 or 6 pre season games on top of the minimum 22 game season, not including finals
# Kevin Sheedy himself has already said it is possible and desirable. Increase bench and reduce length of quarters.
# The conference system is idiotic American nonsense. It is not compatible with Australia.
June 13th 2012 @ 4:43pm
Brewski said | June 13th 2012 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
If the length of games is decreased, the squad of players increased, cricket was willing to give up some more of it’s season, and midweek games became a regular thing then a full H&A season may be possible.
That is quite a list though.
June 13th 2012 @ 5:31pm
Australian Rules said | June 13th 2012 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
“Utter tripe”…(giggle)
Hooli, you didn’t acknowledge the cricket problem. Before you consider any of Brewski’s points, having access to an oval is the starting point. As it stands, most pre-season games are played at Etihad and other regional grounds.
Any ideas?
June 13th 2012 @ 11:33pm
amazonfan said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:33pm | Report comment
“# The players are training anyhow. So the potential for injury is always there. You hear about players going down in preseason all the time.”
You do realize there is a massive difference between an actual game, played for real stakes, compared to training or a meaningless preseason game? It’s absurd that you would actually think they are comparable.
“# They play 5 or 6 pre season games on top of the minimum 22 game season, not including finals”
But even including finals, no player would contest more than 30 matches, and that includes preseason games. You’re asking players to contest 34 H&A games, plus finals. Even if no preseason games are held, it’s still more than what any club would contest now. Furthermore, the reality is, that even if a club were to contest 30+ games in a calender year, almost none of its players would play all of the games. It’s far too taxing, which for some reason you don’t seem to accept.
“# Kevin Sheedy himself has already said it is possible and desirable.”
Well, yes, however there is a difference between possible and probable, or even likely. Is it desirable? Absolutely. Is it possible? Yes. Will it ever happen? Probably not in a million years.
“Increase bench and reduce length of quarters.”
That could help. However there is still one major problem. The AFL doesn’t have access to enough grounds for long enough, thanks to cricket.
“# The conference system is idiotic American nonsense. It is not compatible with Australia.”
The conference system has only been suggested in terms of structuring the draw, however the competition wouldn’t actually be divided into different conferences, like in the US. There would still be the one ladder, and the finals system wouldn’t change. Anyway, this doesn’t have to do with lengthening the season, so I don’t know why you would bring it up.
The fact is that there is nobody in the AFL who are even considering playing 34 games. Not only is it physically too difficult (contrary to what you might imagine, the players do have a job and it’s pretty tough), but even if they figured out a way to overcome the physical difficulties, they don’t have access to the relevant grounds for 34+ weeks.
June 13th 2012 @ 11:06am
Brian said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:06am | Report comment
CA have confirmed Etihad is not a suitable venue for cricket and so the Shield final can’t be played there. What I don’t understand is why they can’t move the Shield final to Kardinia Park?
Michael correct on the AFL wanting revenue with 24 rounds they could go back to 8 games per non public holiday round, give every team 2 byes and stretch the season out. Per my maths 18 rounds of 8 games and 6 rounds of 9 games would get the AFL the 198 games it needs for 18 teams to play 22 games. The 6 9 game rounds could be Easter, ANZAC, Queens Birthday, first round, last round and the Monday night round. That way any “normal” week, we would go back to 8 games.
June 13th 2012 @ 11:26am
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:26am | Report comment
As I mentioned in the top post, not only does the H&A season stretch out to 24 weeks while having the same amount of games, allowing two weeks of rest for players, those six rounds of six games will have fewer clashes meaning higher average attendances and ratings.
Courtesy of the Wookie:
Ratings for Round 11
Note only a 6 match round.
Carlton v Geelong (FTA 744, Fox 244, Total 988)
Richmond v Fremantle (FTA 99, Fox 222, Total 321)
Gold Coast v St Kilda (FTA 31, Fox 191, Total 222)
Essendon v Sydney ( FTA 537, Fox 220)
Port v Hawthorn (FTA 98, Fox 240)
Melbourne v Collingwood (FTA 454, Fox 220)
Total FTA 2,030,000
Total Fox 1,337,000
Total 3,367,000
That’s a good average for 6 games.
Also, the Fox average for 6 games, at 222,833 is very high, easily the highest average of the season. Fox is often around 1.6 to 1.7 million for 9 games at an average of less than 200k.
The key is that those six rounds of 6 games would produce no clashes – helping both attendances and ratings. So it’s win-win for the league, for fans and for players.
June 13th 2012 @ 11:33am
Brian said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:33am | Report comment
I dont think you can draw so much inference from one round involving a public holiday and where the two Victorian teams with the bye were Footscray & North Melbourne
June 13th 2012 @ 11:52am
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 11:52am | Report comment
West Coast and Adelaide also had a bye, and Port and Gold coast both had home games.
In fact, that the suns game could draw 222k when they gave the game up half way through the second quarter, speaks volumes.
I agree attendances and ratings will probably be lower for this round of 6 games, and probably bounce back the following week for the final round of 6 games – but I suspect that the averages over those 18 games will be higher than your average two rounds of 18 games.
June 13th 2012 @ 12:00pm
Strummer Jones said | June 13th 2012 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Sydney v Essendon stats are wrong.
Add another 103k for Sydney (they are on Channel 73, otherwise known as 7 mate, otherwise known as ‘The graveyard of old USA tv programs when AFL is not on” in my household).
June 13th 2012 @ 12:25pm
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Strummer – good pick up – you’re spot on – an extra 103k watched Ess vs Syd on 7Mate in Sydney and Brisbane, which are pretty good numbers for 7Mate.
June 13th 2012 @ 2:34pm
Strummer Jones said | June 13th 2012 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Game wasn’t screened in Brisbane. The 103,000 all belongs to Sydney, so good thing it was a great game. Hopefully 50,000 of them were recently arrived migrants heading to the Western suburbs to start a new life of hope, prosperity, and Aussie Rules.
June 13th 2012 @ 2:40pm
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
The whole 103k was for Sydney only? I didn’t know that.
That’s a huge number for 7Mate – you’d struggle to find anything on 7Mate getting those sorts of numbers in Sydney.
June 13th 2012 @ 2:42pm
The_Wookie said | June 13th 2012 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
yeah it was the best result all year for the swans to date. Next best was the opener at just over 80k.
June 13th 2012 @ 4:04pm
Michael/Brisbane said | June 13th 2012 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Game was screened in Brisbane.
June 13th 2012 @ 2:40pm
The_Wookie said | June 13th 2012 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Thats what I get for doing these things at 4am. I didnt add adelaide figures in for the game.
June 13th 2012 @ 1:00pm
TomC said | June 13th 2012 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
I quite like the Carlton-Richmond season opener but I don’t think it’s worth changing the structure of the season for.
Two byes per team makes sense to me, for a number of commercial and player welfare issues. Plus anything that can potentially keep more players on the field, at better levels of fitness, sounds like it’d be good for us fans.
June 13th 2012 @ 1:52pm
me, I like football said | June 13th 2012 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
To minimise overlaps of games, I propose a 17 game season (each play eachother once) spread over 22/23 week season.
June 13th 2012 @ 2:02pm
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 2:02pm | Report comment
Radical.
Corresponds to a 22% decrease in matches played, and most probably, a similar drop in aggregate revenue.
June 13th 2012 @ 4:29pm
JamesP said | June 13th 2012 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Don’t know about a similar drop in revenue. Yes there would be less games, but due to less overlap there would be higher average crowds and TV ratings. So drop could be less that expected.
I’d argue shift one of the 5 games on Saturday to Monday nights and watch the ratings go through the roof.
June 13th 2012 @ 4:42pm
The Cattery said | June 13th 2012 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
I reckon they’re keeping that one up their sleeve for next time.
June 13th 2012 @ 2:28pm
Strummer Jones said | June 13th 2012 @ 2:28pm | Report comment
No, I think double it to 34 games so that everyone plays each other twice. Also, make it a Top 12 so that the finals extend over 7 weeks. With NAB cup thrown in, that’s only about 5-6 weeks without Aussie Rules a year. I know that’s a bit long (the 5-6 weeks) but the players need at least some time to visit family and friends.
June 13th 2012 @ 4:35pm
JamesP said | June 13th 2012 @ 4:35pm | Report comment
Just quietly, how good has it been to have live Friday night footy into Melbourne (and NSW/QLD) – and also nearer to live in SA/WA on FTA?
Despite foxtel simulcasting, 7′s ratings are also up which is just plain and simply remarkable.
I remember watching the Saints v Tigers game a couple weeks back and went to check the scores on-line (having been so used to the game being delayed), before realising it was live. Full marks AFL for finally twisting 7′s arm.
Yes I know Foxtel ratings also include regional areas, but the majority would be metro, so when you add those to the 5 city FTA, the results are simply unbelievable. I am sure someone (Wookie?) can do the analysis.
June 13th 2012 @ 5:09pm
Strummer Jones said | June 13th 2012 @ 5:09pm | Report comment
Yes, it is great having it live on Friday nights into Sydney…..I just need to work out how to get it on my digital radio now!! Its quite clever (annoyingly) that the AFL cuts off digital radio broadcasts so that (I am guessing here) you cannot turn the telly down and listen to the radio (if you listen to “wireless radio” the broadcast is out of sync with the TV, and the same with downloads off the AFL website).
June 13th 2012 @ 7:47pm
Jack Russell said | June 13th 2012 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
I don’t think it’s that remarkable – it’s a result of games being screened live. In the 21st century, people just don’t accept delayed sport. FTA networks are finally starting to catch on. What’s remarkable is that it’s taken this long and that those TV networks actually have people paid to know this.
June 13th 2012 @ 8:51pm
Redb said | June 13th 2012 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
Makes a huge difference being live.